Apologies ...

I intended to write "no incorrect answers" ...

The torturee may recover physically - mentally they may never. I knew a young African from Somalia who now mixes exclusively with whites because he was tortured by his countrymen.

Then what of the damage to the torturer? How many sadistic bastards are there? For someone 'volunteered' to do the task - how well do they sleep at night? Even the observers are not spared - watching another human being cannot be a highlight for anyone's life.

These problems are then brought home to families.

Drop a pebble in a pond and watch the ripples spread.

Ammonite,

Agreed.

But do you think that a terrorist, prepared to kill others, would experience the same trauma as another person? One suspects they are already brutalised to quite a degree ... with accompanying blunting of emotion.

The issue of the torturer is absolutely loaded. The torturer may see his activites as an extension of active service. Is the appointment by volunteer? Unfortunately, there are many people who have sadistic tendencies ... and this "position" may provide them with justification. I'm sure that whoever carries out any form of torture has been psychologically assessed as to be capable to perform the task.

However, there is a question. Is it ethically right to demand of another person (the torturer) acts that one could not possibly carry out oneself.

Would it be possible to apply the trolley conundrum?

An out-of-control trolley (tram) was heading towards a group of people with the inevitable consequence of death and injury; another line lead to a single person.

Would it be ethical to change the direction of the tram knowing it would kill the individual, but prevent the deaths of several?

Danielle

I understand the philosophical conundrum you have presented. My answer would have to be "I don't know" - until I am faced with such a life and death choice, I really cannot give an honest answer.

However, this conundrum does not compare with the deliberate procedures required for torture - you are comparing apples with oranges - one is an impending accident the other (torture) is purposeful and ethical concerns put aside to harm a person for information they may or may not have which may or may not save lives.

I do not believe in the death penalty either for similar reasons - the action is premeditated and about vengeance and does nothing to further enlighten/evolve/elevate the human psyche.

The laws forbidding torture and their enforcement are necessary for a decent society. If torture is legal torturers will find reasons to torture people. If torture is illegal and laws against the practice are enforced a torturer will be brought to trial. If the torturer can justify the torture the torturer will be released assuming there is a fair trial. There are laws against torture in the United States and Bush, Rumsfeld and all those who ordered, sanctioned and carried out torture should be put on trial. They won't be, but I regard them as criminals.